Mulling v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mulling v. State

88 S.E. 709, 17 Ga. App. 828, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 966

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 21, 1916

Docket7211

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 709 (Mulling v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mulling v. State, 88 S.E. 709, 17 Ga. App. 828, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 966 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. Evidence on the trial of one charged with selling intoxicating liquor that he received money with the request to procure whisky for another person, and thereafter delivered whisky to that person, authorized the inference that the defendant sold the whisky, and the onus was upon him to explain where, how, and from whom he got it. See Langston v. Hazlehurst, 9 Ga. App. 449 (71 S. E. 592); Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045). The defendant’s statement at the trial, that he acted merely as agent for the purchaser, and obtained the whisky from another person mentioned, did not require a finding that this inference was rebutted. Simpson v. Eastman, 16 Ga. App. 185 (84 S. E. 721); Langston v. Hazlehurst, supra. It was for the jury to determine his actual relation to the act charged. Smith v. State, 14 Ga. App. 577 (81 S. E. 801).

2. There is no merit in the exception to the charge of the court, in the form in which the exception is made; the evidence warranted the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wade, J.

1. Evidence on the trial of one charged with selling intoxicating liquor that he received money with the request to procure whisky for another person, and thereafter delivered whisky to that person, authorized the inference that the defendant sold the whisky, and the onus was upon him to explain where, how, and from whom he got it. See Langston v. Hazlehurst, 9 Ga. App. 449 (71 S. E. 592); Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045). The defendant’s statement at the trial, that he acted merely as agent for the purchaser, and obtained the whisky from another person mentioned, did not require a finding that this inference was rebutted. Simpson v. Eastman, 16 Ga. App. 185 (84 S. E. 721); Langston v. Hazlehurst, supra. It was for the jury to determine his actual relation to the act charged. Smith v. State, 14 Ga. App. 577 (81 S. E. 801).

2. There is no merit in the exception to the charge of the court, in the form in which the exception is made; the evidence warranted the verdict, and the trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 709, 17 Ga. App. 828, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 966, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mulling-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack